Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Pro or Con: Pentagon and Cutting the Cost of Weapons


Robert M. Gates, the secretary of defense, told the public over 20 changes in purchasing procedures, which is intended to cut the cost of weapons. The goal of the changes to the procedures is to save $100 billion over the next few years and use the money saved to support the Pentagon's modernization programs. The Pentagon's modernization programs include the design of a new nuclear missile submarine and long-range aerial strike systems. The changes would also cut waste, give military contractors more incentive to complete projects on budget, and give more "bang for your (the taxpayer's) buck." However, because military contractors are cutting costs, there are more layoffs and buyouts at military companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
Although I am all for saving money, I definitely don't support all the goals of the changes. Sure, we could save $100 billion dollars in the next several years, but we really don't need to be spending all that money to continue the Pentagon's modernization programs because: One, it is already getting money. And, two, the money could be better spent on different things such as education. After all, a country can't run on no brains and all brawn. The idea of saving money to create new nuclear missile submarines and other warfare technologies is really smart because they are fueling themselves. If the Pentagon creates new military technologies, they can buy the military weapons at a lower cost than it would previously have cost them, and the money saved would go back into making new technology. Yes, this circle of weapons is smart, but should we really be creating more nuclear missile submarines and weapons. It seems to me that the world has enough weapons of mass destruction to wipe out the world and then more. I guess the U.S. needs to stay at the top of the food chain. Saving money from the military weapons is good, and it could even provide more jobs LATER when new technologies that are developed need to be manufactured. But, I think we should be focusing more on the present. The U.S. economy isn't doing well and we already have a high unemployment rate. The changes to the purchasing procedures are causing more layoffs and buyouts of companies. The changes aren't a bad idea, I just think they could wait a bit while we deal with other important issues.

1 comment:

Manny said...

It's unfortunate how the saving of money would lead to layoffs at Lockheed Martin and Boeing. It's nice to hear that the secretary of defense is cutting the cost of weapons, but at the same time it sounds like it's creating as much damage as healing than intended. Money will be saved, but that money saved will be invested on the Pentagon's Modernization programs, and before the program starts companies will undergo layoffs. Sounds like the government's trying to be cheap.